Horton

Re: Instability of partition_prune regression test results

Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-09-28T07:20:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:59 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 7:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I experimented with adjusting explain_parallel_append() to filter
> >> more fields, but soon realized that we'd have to filter out basically
> >> everything that makes it useful to run EXPLAIN ANALYZE at all.
> >> Therefore, I think it's time to give up this testing methodology
> >> as a bad idea, and fall back to the time-honored way of running a
> >> plain EXPLAIN and then the actual query, as per the attached patch.
>
> > Isn't the point of using ANALYZE here to show that the exec-param
> > based run-time pruning is working (those "never executed" strings)?
>
> Hm.  Well, if you want to see those, we could do it as attached.

Perfect, thanks.

Regards,
Amit

Commits

  1. Rely on plan_cache_mode to force generic plans in partition_prune test.

  2. Improve stability of partition_prune regression test.